Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court After a Gujarat High Court Order

When the Gujarat High Court decides against a litigant and no further remedy exists within that Court, the route to the Supreme Court is usually a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The name matters. It is a petition for leave — permission to appeal — not an appeal. That distinction governs everything about how the Supreme Court approaches it.

What Article 136 confers

Article 136(1) provides that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. Article 136(2) excludes judgments, determinations, sentences and orders passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Two features follow from the text. The jurisdiction is extraordinarily wide in reach — it extends to any court or tribunal and to any kind of order. And it is discretionary: no litigant has a right to be heard under Article 136, and the Court may decline leave without giving reasons.

In practice the Court reserves the jurisdiction for cases raising a substantial question of law of general importance, a gross miscarriage of justice, a decision in conflict with binding precedent, or a serious departure from settled principle. Dissatisfaction with findings of fact is not, by itself, a basis for leave.

Exhaust the High Court first

Before an SLP is contemplated, the remedies within the High Court should be considered.

Where the order was passed by a Single Judge, an intra-court appeal — a Letters Patent Appeal — may lie to a Division Bench, subject to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as applicable to the Gujarat High Court, the “judgment” test, and the distinction between Articles 226 and 227. An SLP filed while an available intra-court appeal remains unexhausted invites dismissal on that ground alone.

A separate point applies to tribunal matters. Following L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, decided by seven Judges on 18 March 1997, no appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136 from the decision of a tribunal constituted under Article 323A or 323B; the High Court must be approached first, before a Division Bench.

Limitation

Article 136 itself prescribes no period. The limitation is found in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XXI for a civil Special Leave Petition and Order XXII for a criminal SLP.

In computing these periods, Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply — which means, among other things, that the time taken to obtain a certified copy is excluded under Section 12, and that delay may be condoned under Section 5 on sufficient cause shown. An application for condonation must accompany a petition filed out of time, explaining the delay day by day rather than in generalities.

Where limitation is claimed from the date of refusal of a certificate under Article 134A, of the nature referred to in Article 132 or Article 133, the Rules do not require the order of refusal itself to be filed; instead the petition must be accompanied by an affidavit stating the date of the judgment appealed from, the date the application for a certificate was made to the High Court, the date of the order refusing it, and the grounds of refusal, including whether the application for the certificate was dismissed as being out of time.

Who may file, and in what form

An Special Leave Petition is filed in the Supreme Court through an Advocate-on-Record. This is a structural feature of Supreme Court practice: only an Advocate-on-Record may file and act for a party, though other advocates may argue.

Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the petition is presented in Form No. 28. It is ordinarily accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned judgment or order, a list of dates setting out the chronology, the grounds on which leave is sought, an affidavit verifying the contents, a vakalatnama, and the annexures relied upon. Where a document was not part of the record before the courts below, the petition must explain why it was not produced earlier and why it should be received now. Where relevant provisions cited in the impugned judgment are not in English, an English version is filed as an appendix.

What happens after filing

After filing, the Special Leave Petition is listed before a Supreme Court Bench for admission. At this stage, the Court may dismiss it, issue notice, or grant leave.

The Court may dismiss the Special Leave Petition, with or without reasons. A dismissal at this stage is a refusal of leave; it does not necessarily amount to an affirmation of the High Court’s reasoning on the merits.

The Court may issue notice to the respondents, after which the matter is listed for a further hearing on whether leave should be granted.

Or the Court may grant leave. Once leave is granted, the petition is converted into a civil or criminal appeal and is thereafter heard as an appeal in the ordinary course. Interim relief, such as a stay of the High Court’s order, recovery proceedings or a sentence, may also be sought and is granted at the Court’s discretion.

Practical considerations

Three practical points matter when considering an SLP.

Obtain the certified copy immediately. Limitation runs from the date of the judgment, and although the time taken to obtain a certified copy is excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a delay in applying for it is not.

Frame the question, not the grievance. The Court is being asked to exercise a discretionary jurisdiction. A petition that identifies a clean question of law, or a conflict with a binding decision, presents something the Court can act on. One that re-argues the facts does not.

Weigh whether leave is realistically available. A very large proportion of special leave petitions are refused at the admission stage. That is a function of the jurisdiction’s design rather than a comment on any individual case: Article 136 exists as a residual constitutional safeguard, not as a further tier of appeal available as of course.

Legal Information Disclaimer

This article is published for general legal information and educational purposes only. It reflects the position of Indian law as researched up to 10 August 2026 and may not account for subsequent amendments, notifications, rule changes or judicial developments. It is not legal advice, does not take into account any individual’s particular facts or circumstances, and no advocate-client relationship arises from reading it. Outcomes in litigation depend on the specific facts of each case and on procedural requirements in force at the relevant time. Readers dealing with an actual dispute should obtain independent professional advice from a qualified advocate of their own choosing before acting on any information contained here.

Sources / Authorities

• Constitution of India, Articles 132, 133, 134A and 136 — India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXI (Special Leave Petitions — Civil) and Order XXII (Special Leave Petitions — Criminal), including the limitation periods, Form No. 28 and the affidavit required where limitation is claimed from refusal of a certificate — Supreme Court of India
• Limitation Act, 1963, Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, seven-Judge Bench, decided 18 March 1997 — no direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a tribunal; High Court to be approached first — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152518/
• Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 28 December 1865, Clause 15 (as applicable to the High Court of Gujarat)